Movie of the Month - Dark City (July 2017)

Podcast coming soon (hopefully today or tomorrow), but I just wanted to open this thread a little early to see what people had to say about Dark City. We've got five reviews of it on the site, all of which are positive and four of which are

or

, though the review-less ratings are a little less forgiving.

And while some of the stuff in the following link may step on some of the stuff we say in the podcast, here's an interesting analysis of the film and its visual symbolism.

Huge fan of Dark City. Although, like Rufus Sewell, I tend to favor the Director's Cut, and not the inferior Theatrical Cut. Check out Sewell's comments on the different cuts on the DVD if you get a chance, as they are good for a laugh (he does NOT like the Theatrical Cut at all).

Anyway, Dark City is right up my ally. Tech Noir? I'm there! I have not watched it in a while, so I guess it being the movie of the month for July is as good an excuse as any, yea?

__________________

"There’s absolutely no doubt you can be slightly better tomorrow than you are today." - JBP

Huge fan of Dark City. Although, like Rufus Sewell, I tend to favor the Director's Cut, and not the inferior Theatrical Cut. Check out Sewell's comments on the different cuts on the DVD if you get a chance, as they are good for a laugh (he does NOT like the Theatrical Cut at all).

Interesting, I didn't know there was a Director's Cut, in a nut shell why doesn't Rufus Sewell like the Theatrical Cut?

Does it have to do with the ultra short shot lengths? which is one of the shortest lengths used, averaging only 1.8 seconds per camera shot?

I think both versions have very short shot lengths. The theatrical cut has a ridiculous bit of narration in the beginning explicitly telling the audience what's going on, rather than throwing them into the story and gradually revealing it.

There is also some mixing around of the order of some scenes that make some sections of the theatrical cut not make sense - this has been fixed in the DC. I think Sewell's main issue was the narration, but he comes down pretty heavily on the TC, and the idea of studios getting to make decisions on final cuts in general. He also takes a shot at a portion of the audience that the studio had in mind when they added the narration, which is a pretty funny comment. He uses some color language in regards to the alleged "dummies".

No caffeine for me next time. I apologize for the incomplete and scattered thoughts. When I'm listening now I can understand it, but only by relying on my own memory of what I was going for. Soooooo good luck, y'all are good at extrapolating right?

A possible locus of "humanity" that this movie may present is a meaningful connection between moments, not just the amount of moments. Even if you have 70 years of memories, if they are are scrambled up between different lifetimes, it's harder to have a concrete sense of identity (something that The Strangers lack). The desperation to have results as quickly as possible spoils the "experiment", individual identity might be an emergent property of organized memories, not simply the sum.

Also, the film ends with the experiment "done right" in a way, John is going to operate on the motives that he was installed with, but see them through to the end.

A possible locus of "humanity" that this movie may present is a meaningful connection between moments, not just the amount of moments. Even if you have 70 years of memories, if they are are scrambled up between different lifetimes, it's harder to have a concrete sense of identity (something that The Strangers lack). The desperation to have results as quickly as possible spoils the "experiment", individual identity might be an emergent property of organized memories, not simply the sum.

Also, the film ends with the experiment "done right" in a way, John is going to operate on the motives that he was installed with, but see them through to the end.

I'm still surprised that both of you came in with high ratings despite seeming unimpressed with a lot of it.

I don't remember criticizing it too much, though it might just be that what criticisms there were got an inordinate amount of time. Might be one of those things where what's good about it is relatively straightforward, so it's more interesting to discuss the things that don't quite work.

I took for granted that it was a mini classic, however, and as such might not have felt the need to enumerate all that's good about it (which is a lot!).

I don't remember criticizing it too much, though it might just be that what criticisms there were got an inordinate amount of time. Might be one of those things where what's good about it is relatively straightforward, so it's more interesting to discuss the things that don't quite work.

I took for granted that it was a mini classic, however, and as such might not have felt the need to enumerate all that's good about it (which is a lot!).

Fair enough.

I had a good time talking about this film, probably a more philosophical chat than I've ever had with someone about it. Listening to it I'm sitting here thinking "I should have said this, or I should have said that" but as a whole I thought it was a success!!!!